Dating Habits Cause Cheating in Relationships

[Untouchable_Fire]

"The rise in infidelity among this cohort has caught some marriage experts off-guard. David Popenoe of the Marriage Project, at Rutgers University, immediately noted this oddity: Although our culture may have gotten more sexually permissive over the past 50 years, "the attitudes against adultery have gotten firmer over time." He cites one survey showing that more than 90% of the population believes that cheating on one's spouse is always wrong.

 

So why haven't those strong beliefs translated into better behavior? Diane Sollee, who used to be a marriage counselor and now runs Smart Marriages (a coalition of marriage educators), believes that infidelity in most instances is simply a matter of opportunity. And people have more opportunities these days. Many of the men she has spoken with over the years tell her that the other woman "wasn't even cute or sexy." She reports that her clients "accidentally started having intimacy with a person. Whether at work or at church, wherever they're hanging out, anything that increases those encounters increases the chance of infidelity."

 

There is no doubt that the opportunity for infidelity has increased since large numbers of women came into the workplace. But this is not a particularly recent phenomenon. Ms. Sollee does note that it is possible for individuals to have more "secrecy" now, thanks to modern technology like cellphones and email, but Edward Laumann, a professor of sociology at the University of Chicago, suggests that technology is a "slender reed to speculate about." Even with the best technology, he notes, to have an affair "you still have to be able to meet people in person."

 

It turns out that young couples have always had a higher rate of infidelity than their elders. The seven-year itch is something of a myth, says Ms. Sollee, who cites research showing that most cheating takes place within the first three years of a marriage and, perhaps most surprisingly, within six months of the birth of a first child. These facts still seem to be true.

 

So what is going on? Why is there so much cheating? All of the scholars I spoke with point to the higher median age at which young people get married as the most likely explanation. Since 1950, the age of first marriage has risen to 25 from 20 for women and to 27 from 22 for men. "It's more common for people to be hooking up or having relationships with multiple partners" before marriage, says Prof. Laumann.

 

Even young people who engage in monogamous relationships before marriage may be hurting their prospects for a faithful married life. The habits they form in those premarital relationships are likely to affect their marriages, according to Barry McCarthy, a psychologist and professor at American University in Washington. "The most common way that dating couples end a relationship is by starting another" -- that is, by cheating on their current partner. Moreover, once people have gone through a couple of breakups of long-term relationships, they may not be as worried about what will happen at the end of their marriage. "The costs of exiting have changed," says Mr. Laumann.

 

And it is not just the interaction with boyfriends and girlfriends that may affect their behavior in marriage. Even the habits that young people form with nonromantic companions can change the way they relate to their future spouses. It is very common, for instance, for 20-somethings to form close, long-lasting friendships with members of the opposite sex. Some may even be "friends with benefits." While in the past it was clear that a platonic friendship between a single woman and a single man would end when one of them got married -- or at least would wind down -- today that is not the case, according to Ms. Sollee. Instead, she notes, young people say: "Just because I'm getting married doesn't mean things will change." But those friendships can, over time, develop into a source of temptation.

 

Even friendships with members of the same sex generally used to fall by the wayside when people got married or, again, change in scale or importance. Ms. Sollee, who is in her 60s, recalls her own generation's attitude toward them: "The idea that these friendships would take any priority over your husband was unheard of." But she cites a number of 20- and 30-something women she knows who still have "girls' nights out" at bars and even go on vacation with their friends and without their husbands.

 

Mr. Laumann notes that while not a lot of quantitative research has been done on these friendships, there is plenty of evidence that they are occupying a more significant place in the lives of young people today. He cites a book called "Urban Tribe," by Ethan Watters, a man in San Francisco who writes about the difficulty of finding a wife who fits in with his group of friends. Such groups of friends represent a new kind of family for young adults. And while a potential spouse might initially prefer them to the stereotypical overbearing in-laws, it's clear that these friends are bringing a whole new set of problems to the table"

[sumdude]

Not too surprising to me. My ex wife and recent ex GF had both been in a few long term live together relationships as well as a higher number of partners than me. So when my ex wife decided to go outside the marriage (about 1.5 years into it) it was just another relationship to her. She exited our marriage pretty much the same way she exited her previous relationships.

[TheBigQuestion]

This is actually very interesting. While I'm not necessarily sold on all the findings in this article, I really am interested in what the posters here would have to say about this. A majority on this board, particularly the women, repeatedly post things here critical or outright dismissive of these findings, usually along the lines of "my past behaviors do not affect my degree of commitment in long term relationships!!!11!!"

[Untouchable_Fire]

This is actually very interesting. While I'm not necessarily sold on all the findings in this article, I really am interested in what the posters here would have to say about this. A majority on this board, particularly the women, repeatedly post things here critical or outright dismissive of these findings, usually along the lines of "my past behaviors do not affect my degree of commitment in long term relationships!!!11!!"

 

Which we all know is bull****.

 

The whole idea that you will change once you find the right girl/guy is foolish. I'm seeing that right now with my friend who is dating a nasty hippie chick. Yeah... she has changed her MO to try and reel him in... probably because he makes lots of money and she works for practically nothing.

 

Anyway... if your past relationships were disposable... so are your future relationships. We have found at work that 83% of the time people do not change their work performance long term even when provided extra incentives. Though short term changes are frequent and easy to generate.

[carhill]

Remember to apply the parameters and conclusions equally for the genders. Hence, for a man, if his past relationships were disposable, one could infer that his future relationships are disposable. The difficult part to assess in a short period of time while dating is how the definition of 'disposable' applies qualitatively to the person in question, of either gender.

 

My personal story was perhaps an anomaly. Dated only one person at a time, was sexually exclusive, had relatively low sexual partner numbers and always took some alone time between dating or relationship experiences voluntarily, regardless of who ended the dynamic. Yet I cheated on my wife, though not sexually; regardless, still an unhealthy result to a seemingly healthy set of prior choices. The clear determiner of unhealthiness lies in the past, with a string of emotional and inappropriate relationships with married women. Regardless of circumstances, those interactions set the stage for what was to come. As I opined elsewhere, life is a continuum of choices. Over time, choices become habits. Habits become a lifestyle. Still, we have the power of choice, to choose differently. What choice will we make today?

[TheBigQuestion]

Which we all know is bull****.

 

The whole idea that you will change once you find the right girl/guy is foolish. I'm seeing that right now with my friend who is dating a nasty hippie chick. Yeah... she has changed her MO to try and reel him in... probably because he makes lots of money and she works for practically nothing.

 

Anyway... if your past relationships were disposable... so are your future relationships. We have found at work that 83% of the time people do not change their work performance long term even when provided extra incentives. Though short term changes are frequent and easy to generate.

 

I won't go so far as to deny that many people WILL change their dating habits once they find the right person, but I agree that this is probably not what happens in the majority of cases. And although I hate to bring in anecdotal evidence for any reason on this board, this definitely rings true in my own experiences. My housemate, for example, is a pretty accomplished womanizer. He moved here from the west coast to attend school with me and he has a girlfriend that he's been with for 2+ years. Has that stopped him from cheating, both when he's been here and even before he moved? No. He's slept with at least 4 different women since moving here in July. Why? At least partially because he is a good looking guy with a decent amount of charisma, and that's simply what he's been used to since his high school days. And I'm in agreement with Carhill in saying that this absolutely goes both ways.

[Mad Max]

This is actually very interesting. While I'm not necessarily sold on all the findings in this article, I really am interested in what the posters here would have to say about this. A majority on this board, particularly the women, repeatedly post things here critical or outright dismissive of these findings, usually along the lines of "my past behaviors do not affect my degree of commitment in long term relationships!!!11!!"

 

 

Riiight. The best way to predict future behavior is past behavior. If the past doesn't matter, why do employers look at an employee's past history? Why do people that served time have problems finding employment? Simply put, the past matters. If you have a promiscuous past, a criminal record, or something else that negatively impacts performance, statistics prove that is not likely to change. Promiscous people usually continue with that lifestyle. Criminals usually re-offend. If these weren't true, then the past wouldn't matter. But they do. People in most cases do not change their personalities and their personal choices.

[sumdude]

Riiight. The best way to predict future behavior is past behavior. If the past doesn't matter, why do employers look at an employee's past history? Why do people that served time have problems finding employment? Simply put, the past matters. If you have a promiscuous past, a criminal record, or something else that negatively impacts performance, statistics prove that is not likely to change. Promiscous people usually continue with that lifestyle. Criminals usually re-offend. If these weren't true, then the past wouldn't matter. But they do. People in most cases do not change their personalities and their personal choices.

 

True dat. But there has to be a long term pattern. I think someone who cheated once. Felt the guilt and atoned is a different sort than a consistent string of behavior.

 

"Chain chain chain... chain of fools"

[mr.dream merchant]

Riiight. The best way to predict future behavior is past behavior. If the past doesn't matter, why do employers look at an employee's past history? Why do people that served time have problems finding employment? Simply put, the past matters. If you have a promiscuous past, a criminal record, or something else that negatively impacts performance, statistics prove that is not likely to change. Promiscous people usually continue with that lifestyle. Criminals usually re-offend. If these weren't true, then the past wouldn't matter. But they do. People in most cases do not change their personalities and their personal choices.

 

Probably explains why the lovely woman I was just involved with exited out in a cold, immature, and irresponsible way. When we were getting to know each other she told me she cheated on her ex's. I tried to be mature about it *After having it pounded in my head that I'm wrong for judging people based on their past* but in the end, she ended up just leaving me in the dark and moving on

 

Not sure, perhaps paranoia but everything went downhill when she got a new personal/private fitness trainer who's an MMA fighter. She told me he's a mutual friend of the family, and that she's gonna sign up at the gym he works out at but keep her membership @ the one I met her in.

 

Go figure, 3 weeks go by, she slips out of my grip, and she hasn't been to our gym since. Heh, something didn't sit well with me when I found out about the personal/private trainer..but again, I tried to be the bigger person about it. Guess I was wrong.

[TheBigQuestion]

Riiight. The best way to predict future behavior is past behavior. If the past doesn't matter, why do employers look at an employee's past history? Why do people that served time have problems finding employment? Simply put, the past matters. If you have a promiscuous past, a criminal record, or something else that negatively impacts performance, statistics prove that is not likely to change. Promiscous people usually continue with that lifestyle. Criminals usually re-offend. If these weren't true, then the past wouldn't matter. But they do. People in most cases do not change their personalities and their personal choices.

 

I agree. I don't try to act like my own past should not be a huge factor in whether or not someone dates me and it isn't even all that "bad." I just find it ludicrous that some people genuinely believe that 180 degree changes in personality and habits will just happen when they meet the right person. Of course it happens, but is it really the norm? I'd venture to think that it isn't. Most of the people that I know are not fundamentally different in any way now than they were 4 or 5 years ago. Real change requires massive amounts of effort, amounts which most people are too lazy or unwilling to invest.

[sumdude]

Probably explains why the lovely woman I was just involved with exited out in a cold, immature, and irresponsible way. When we were getting to know each other she told me she cheated on her ex's. I tried to be mature about it *After having it pounded in my head that I'm wrong for judging people based on their past* but in the end, she ended up just leaving me in the dark and moving on

 

 

Chalk it up to experience. You saw the big red flag waving out there and allowed her to guilt you into believing your instincts were off. BTW gaslighting, guilt tripping and emotional manipulation are warning signs of a cheater too.

[Stung]

This is actually very interesting. While I'm not necessarily sold on all the findings in this article, I really am interested in what the posters here would have to say about this. A majority on this board, particularly the women, repeatedly post things here critical or outright dismissive of these findings, usually along the lines of "my past behaviors do not affect my degree of commitment in long term relationships!!!11!!"

 

 

The main point in this study seemed to be that if people get into a habit of ending all of their relationships by cheating, they are likely to cheat in a marriage as well. I don't disagree with that statement, personally, and doubt many on this forum will--it's kind of common sense. What I have noticed women being dismissive of are some other posters' insisting that bisexual women, or women who have had sex with multiple partners in their serially monogamous past, are likely to be cheaters. There's a big difference.

[sally4sara]

This is an interesting article; thanks for contributing it Untouchable!

 

It does cause more questions within me tho because of the trends I witnessed in the life long, more traditional styled relationships of my elders and those of older generation family friends.

 

I remember the elder ladies of my family at our reunions and get togethers. Lots of regret being spoken of about their choices. Especially that of the widowed ladies. How isolated and harried they felt as new mothers. How cold the association between they and their husbands became over the years. A lot of how their own adherence to fidelity was never something they were given credit for because their husbands looked at it as something women naturally were capable of while expecting some grand prize over their own diligence toward fidelity because they believed it was a huge sacrifice they had made as a man. Some spoke of never having had an orgasm in their entire life! That their husbands would lord over them about being the only one bringing in money, that it justified them calling all the shots around the home and this was their final word in justifying what would happen. Yet these husbands never wanted to take up some of the parenting to allow them to work and contribute monetarily too because it wasn't their job as men to take care of the kids.

Being cheated on and it being something they were expected to tolerate as payment for being provided for. Abuse if they spoke up in disapproval.

All the places they wanted to see before they died never being seen because it wasn't a goal their husband held. That damn near all of my female family members had gone through training as nurses, yet were expected to not work as nurses and only nurse their family and then their aging husband before he died leaving them with nothing but their grown children and what siblings they still had alive as companions because they had never cultivated lasting friendships as adults.

 

If today causes more infidelity due to women having careers, having friendships, and interests outside of the home - well I will say that sounds like a logical assumption that may be true - of WOMEN because they do now have the same opportunities previously only available to men of older generations. If they are now acting on these opportunities they way only men use to, then it stands to reason that the increase of infidelity is due to women reacting the same way under those circumstances that men of those older generations did and the men of today do. So my take on this article is that while it points to indications of why infidelity is more common, should we go back to less people having the opportunities in general available to them that create more infidelity? If so, whom should we deny these opportunities? And do we want people being faithful due to less opportunity or because they choose to despite opportunity?

 

But I ask you: Do you think everyone was happier back in the "more moral" good old days. Or do you reckon that the only ones happier back then were usually men?

 

I do think technology makes cheating easier, but so too does it aid in detecting it.

 

Also, if cheating happens in part due to the consequences of loss through divorce being lower now - why do so many LS men still insist that divorce only benefits women?

[Untouchable_Fire]

I remember the elder ladies of my family at our reunions and get togethers. Lots of regret being spoken of about their choices. Especially that of the widowed ladies. How isolated and harried they felt as new mothers. How cold the association between they and their husbands became over the years. A lot of how their own adherence to fidelity was never something they were given credit for because their husbands looked at it as something women naturally were capable of while expecting some grand prize over their own diligence toward fidelity because they believed it was a huge sacrifice they had made as a man. Some spoke of never having had an orgasm in their entire life! That their husbands would lord over them about being the only one bringing in money, that it justified them calling all the shots around the home and this was their final word in justifying what would happen. Yet these husbands never wanted to take up some of the parenting to allow them to work and contribute monetarily too because it wasn't their job as men to take care of the kids.

Being cheated on and it being something they were expected to tolerate as payment for being provided for. Abuse if they spoke up in disapproval.

All the places they wanted to see before they died never being seen because it wasn't a goal their husband held. That damn near all of my female family members had gone through training as nurses, yet were expected to not work as nurses and only nurse their family and then their aging husband before he died leaving them with nothing but their grown children and what siblings they still had alive as companions because they had never cultivated lasting friendships as adults.

 

While not universal these were trends among couples over the age of 70. I've heard the same thing from women and men of this particular generation. I agree that this was somewhat typical.

 

Couples currently in their 50's have a much different dynamic on average.

 

If today causes more infidelity due to women having careers, having friendships, and interests outside of the home - well I will say that sounds like a logical assumption that may be true - of WOMEN because they do now have the same opportunities previously only available to men of older generations. If they are now acting on these opportunities they way only men use to, then it stands to reason that the increase of infidelity is due to women reacting the same way under those circumstances that men of those older generations did and the men of today do. So my take on this article is that while it points to indications of why infidelity is more common, should we go back to less people having the opportunities in general available to them that create more infidelity? If so, whom should we deny these opportunities? And do we want people being faithful due to less opportunity or because they choose to despite opportunity?

 

Women were not faithful in the past because they lacked opportunity. We have never been a muslim style society where women are not allowed outside the home.

 

The issue is in the consequences. Women in the past would take huge economic losses in a divorce. It was not great for men either... but typically a man could avoid becoming a pauper due to a divorce.

 

Today men are exclusively punished in a divorce... women actually make money. Even in situations where women earn more than men, they typically are not forced to pay spousal support... and it's even rarer that they pay child support. Plus adultery is not a consideration in a divorce.

 

So... If I wanted to lower the infidelity rate in the U.S. I would simply make it so proof of adultery is equivalent to spousal abuse in a divorce case. Which would means adulterers would lose HUGE in divorce.

 

I would also allow BS's the ability to hold companies responsible for any conditions which may promote or assist adultery.

 

But I ask you: Do you think everyone was happier back in the "more moral" good old days. Or do you reckon that the only ones happier back then were usually men?

I do think technology makes cheating easier, but so too does it aid in detecting it.

Also, if cheating happens in part due to the consequences of loss through divorce being lower now - why do so many LS men still insist that divorce only benefits women?

 

Divorce DOES only benefit women. I know that first hand. I had no kids and an Ex/W who made more than me. She racked up 40,000 in debt without my knowledge... and in the divorce I was forced to take on 30,000 of that.

 

The only time guys get out of a divorce easily is when the woman chooses to be merciful.

 

Look, things are not bad for men today... so long as your committed to being a liar and a cheat... with no interest in long term commitment.

 

You may think... Yeah things are great now... it's just even, but you fail to see the long term impact. We can see a very strong equivalent in African American culture, where fathers have been driven out the picture for generations. It has created an enormous downward spiral of crime poverty and drug addiction, which affects both men and women.

 

So too is mainstream culture pushing men away from marriage and making them absentee fathers. It will be a slower slip, but we are already seeing an overall downspiral in the quality of our boys.

[Surrealist]

This is an interesting article; thanks for contributing it Untouchable!

 

It does cause more questions within me tho because of the trends I witnessed in the life long, more traditional styled relationships of my elders and those of older generation family friends.

 

I remember the elder ladies of my family at our reunions and get togethers. Lots of regret being spoken of about their choices. Especially that of the widowed ladies. How isolated and harried they felt as new mothers. How cold the association between they and their husbands became over the years. A lot of how their own adherence to fidelity was never something they were given credit for because their husbands looked at it as something women naturally were capable of while expecting some grand prize over their own diligence toward fidelity because they believed it was a huge sacrifice they had made as a man. Some spoke of never having had an orgasm in their entire life! That their husbands would lord over them about being the only one bringing in money, that it justified them calling all the shots around the home and this was their final word in justifying what would happen. Yet these husbands never wanted to take up some of the parenting to allow them to work and contribute monetarily too because it wasn't their job as men to take care of the kids.

Being cheated on and it being something they were expected to tolerate as payment for being provided for. Abuse if they spoke up in disapproval.

All the places they wanted to see before they died never being seen because it wasn't a goal their husband held. That damn near all of my female family members had gone through training as nurses, yet were expected to not work as nurses and only nurse their family and then their aging husband before he died leaving them with nothing but their grown children and what siblings they still had alive as companions because they had never cultivated lasting friendships as adults.

 

 

I always say if you want to know what a marriage that lasts is like, take a look at our parents. Or grandparents for those of you a little younger.

 

If today causes more infidelity due to women having careers, having friendships, and interests outside of the home - well I will say that sounds like a logical assumption that may be true - of WOMEN because they do now have the same opportunities previously only available to men of older generations. If they are now acting on these opportunities they way only men use to, then it stands to reason that the increase of infidelity is due to women reacting the same way under those circumstances that men of those older generations did and the men of today do. So my take on this article is that while it points to indications of why infidelity is more common, should we go back to less people having the opportunities in general available to them that create more infidelity? If so, whom should we deny these opportunities? And do we want people being faithful due to less opportunity or because they choose to despite opportunity?

 

 

Slippery slope. There's no going back now. Imagine what the world is going to be like in many years to come. There will probably be less and less of the typical family structure and I don't think it is going to nurture a healthy, strong society.

 

But I ask you: Do you think everyone was happier back in the "more moral" good old days. Or do you reckon that the only ones happier back then were usually men?

 

 

Maybe not to do with more morals back in the day (it should be mentioned that there was still infidelity and promiscuity but not as pervasive), but I do wonder, we are suppose to be more free now, more materialistic, more luxuries and more everything yet there is seemingly more depression and mental illness today as well (though this increase may have more to do with the psychology profession identifying and defining mental illnesses that already existed). Still I think there is a big ? over whether people are happier now. I think there is less security perhaps and less family support today and generally a decline in community values and belonging?

 

I do agree with the responses above, but just to throw a spanner, there are examples of people marrying young and feeling they missed out on their youth to seek divorce to get back into the action. Maybe because we are in such a sex fest society that we feel like we're missing out on all the fun or something?

[Untouchable_Fire]

I do agree with the responses above, but just to throw a spanner, there are examples of people marrying young and feeling they missed out on their youth to seek divorce to get back into the action. Maybe because we are in such a sex fest society that we feel like we're missing out on all the fun or something?

 

It's about what we collectively value. In the U.S. we put lots of value on children, but zero value on family.

 

The vast majority of single parent kids are messed in the head. I can't think of 1 friend who came from a single parent home and isn't constantly depressed. Luckily, we make pills for that. Right?

[zengirl]

Divorce DOES only benefit women. I know that first hand. I had no kids and an Ex/W who made more than me. She racked up 40,000 in debt without my knowledge... and in the divorce I was forced to take on 30,000 of that.

 

The only time guys get out of a divorce easily is when the woman chooses to be merciful.

 

Look, things are not bad for men today... so long as your committed to being a liar and a cheat... with no interest in long term commitment.

 

You may think... Yeah things are great now... it's just even, but you fail to see the long term impact. We can see a very strong equivalent in African American culture, where fathers have been driven out the picture for generations. It has created an enormous downward spiral of crime poverty and drug addiction, which affects both men and women.

 

So too is mainstream culture pushing men away from marriage and making them absentee fathers. It will be a slower slip, but we are already seeing an overall downspiral in the quality of our boys.

 

My mother lost money in her divorce, as do many women. All depends. More women get support, but that's because of the way more households set up with the man as the majority breadwinner. Women are more likely to give up career years to raise children. Women are more likely to be the spouse to give up their job or make a sacrifice so they can move with a partner who's accepted a promotion in another city. As long as that is true, women will be the parties most compensated by divorce, because it was always agreed to that they would be compensated within the marriage. If both parties agree that the woman's career will be sacrificed for the family, when things don't work out, she should be compensated (barring major misbehavior on her part, of course).

 

I always say if you want to know what a marriage that lasts is like, take a look at our parents. Or grandparents for those of you a little younger.

 

My grandparents were both pretty unhappy. My father's side, my grandma is a very positive person and makes the best of things, but neither couple was terribly in love. Worse yet, neither really communicated. I'd rather be alone than with someone I can't even really talk to. Plenty of those lasting marriages were bad. I don't think there are less good marriages today; just less bad marriages that last.

 

It's about what we collectively value. In the U.S. we put lots of value on children, but zero value on family.

 

The vast majority of single parent kids are messed in the head. I can't think of 1 friend who came from a single parent home and isn't constantly depressed. Luckily, we make pills for that. Right?

 

My boyfriend was raised by a single parent, and he's perfectly fine. As are many friends of mine. My Mom was a single parent for awhile before she met my step-father, and her being a single parent forever would've been infinitely better than her staying with my father. The majority of people with single parents I've met are just fine.

 

I think we should value family, but we should broaden what family means. I think we should value a greater community, but not counsel people to stay in relationships that aren't working. Plenty of messed up people come from 2-parent households, too.

Edited December 3, 2010 by zengirl

[sally4sara]

Divorce DOES only benefit women. I know that first hand. I had no kids and an Ex/W who made more than me. She racked up 40,000 in debt without my knowledge... and in the divorce I was forced to take on 30,000 of that.

 

The only time guys get out of a divorce easily is when the woman chooses to be merciful.

 

Look, things are not bad for men today... so long as your committed to being a liar and a cheat... with no interest in long term commitment.

 

You may think... Yeah things are great now... it's just even, but you fail to see the long term impact. We can see a very strong equivalent in African American culture, where fathers have been driven out the picture for generations. It has created an enormous downward spiral of crime poverty and drug addiction, which affects both men and women.

 

So too is mainstream culture pushing men away from marriage and making them absentee fathers. It will be a slower slip, but we are already seeing an overall downspiral in the quality of our boys.

 

I've seen divorce go very badly for women while it goes not so badly for the man. Even with custody factored in the mix.

I've spoke of this before; my ex roomate (single father caring for his son from infancy) He and the mother never married and in most of these unmarried cases of custody the mother wins. The courts tend to look at the man's unwillingness to have married as a knock against his ability to be responsible. In his case the mother never wanted the kid. It probably would have been aborted if he had not offered her zero responsibility for the boy. When his son was 9 and my exroomie got a good job offer in his hometown, the mother's mom didn't want to lose access to her grandkid and badgered the mom into snatching the boy out of school and going for custody.

This guy, who made more money than the mom, fought it and won. The mom was ordered to pay child support.

He also went on to make a support group for fathers going through divorce and custody. What he found was that quite often during the process, men just don't try to go for custody, even sometimes don't try for split custody. What they most often did instead was try to keep their legal costs as low as they could and try to finagle for the smallest CS amount possible. It seemed to be that the moment some hear the words "divorce and custody" their first immediate concern was - MONEY; not the kids and their time with them.

Some did this out of a lack of knowledge for what action they could take. Some others didn't even try for two reasons.

They were believers of women being naturally better at parenting.

They immediately accepted, without trying, that their wife would get the kids no matter what.

 

But the ones that put effort in valued their relationship with the kids over the monetary cost of legally preserving that relationship. These men were the ones who got split custody or primary custody.

 

I believe if more men were that way, you'd less men getting taken advantage of in the courts. If you see a large discrepancy in who fairs better in the courts today, you have to take into consideration those fathers who are less invested in their children and those fathers that just roll over and quit as part of that equation.

 

How odd it has always been to me that women can rally and fight for a larger voice and more rights. Change the collective conditions of their gender over the last 100 years. But men have yet to collectively challenge our societies unfair treatment of fathers in the courts. Is it just that they grew soft while they were on top and never learned stand against anything beyond whomever we decide to go to war with? The old saying "the struggle is the blessing" comes to mind.

[northern_sky]

this article makes me sad.

[dreamingoftigers]

I totally believe that past relationship are an indicator or how one will act in the current relationship.

 

I know that I completely respect marriage and have strong stances about it. In my past I had two LTRs and dated a few times but never got sexually involved with any of the dates. I held a high premium on who I would share my sex with and therefore my husband is actually only my 3rd partner.

 

Despite all of the invitations over the years, even after marriage. Why bother? It would only put me at risk of an unwanted pregnancy or an STD or the ridiculous amount of guilt I would feel (although less now considering the open-door policy my husband has kept on his sex life) that I would not be able to hold in.

 

My husband on the other hand had me quite firmly convinced that he had left "his past behind him." Past consisting of over 60 women by the age of 26 including sexual encounters with more then one person at times and a fiancee that he cheated on. His behaviour merely reflects this trend.

 

Close friend of mine previous to marriage could never ay no to a guy even is she did not want to sleep with him, has trouble doing so today.

[Woggle]

This is precisely why despite what some women say on here past relationships are a good way to judge what future behavior will be. If a woman had treated every man she dated in the past a certain way what makes men think she will treat him any different? It goes the same for men as well but for some reason it's mostly women who are shocked when a player ends up playing them. Men tend to know damn well there are certain women who are not relationship material and the ones who don't know that end up with broken hearts.

[sally4sara]

This is precisely why despite what some women say on here past relationships are a good way to judge what future behavior will be. If a woman had treated every man she dated in the past a certain way what makes men think she will treat him any different? It goes the same for men as well but for some reason it's mostly women who are shocked when a player ends up playing them. Men tend to know damn well there are certain women who are not relationship material and the ones who don't know that end up with broken hearts.

 

Trust me Woggle when I say that women tend to know there are certain men who are not relationship material too.

 

But just like for men, it requires the person they are trying to have a relationship with being at least somewhat honest about who they are and what they've done in the past to accurately assess whether they are relationship material or not. And woman have no more or less ability to float an unproven lie than men do. People who use honesty and constantly run into getting nixed for what they share in honesty are not going to just accept that maybe they are not worthy of a relationship. They will just begin to lie about their past or their present intentions. If you're just getting to know them, you don't know enough to prove what they share is a lie or not.

 

We've all been suckered. Which is why relationships have become more disposable. Think about it, you date someone for a while and you begin to see all the holes in their stories, noticing they don't seem to be the person they advertised themselves to be. Then what? You're suppose to stay with them because rejecting them means you're developing poor dating habits by leaving and looking for someone new?

[Woggle]

In my experience and I admit it is mine it is mostly the women who try to turn players into loving and faithful men while the men know damn well the party girls they mess around with are not the kind you bring home to meet mom.

 

Also while many women end up putting themselves through emotional torture over dating a married man most men I know who date married women are well aware she is just a piece of ass.

 

I am aware that many people lie but it does not mean that these issues should not be seen as red flags.

[hART]

While doing some research on depression, I found people who have friends outside the relationship are happier than people who don't. I'm beginning to think monogamy is a joke.

[Untouchable_Fire]

My mother lost money in her divorce, as do many women. All depends. More women get support, but that's because of the way more households set up with the man as the majority breadwinner. Women are more likely to give up career years to raise children. Women are more likely to be the spouse to give up their job or make a sacrifice so they can move with a partner who's accepted a promotion in another city. As long as that is true, women will be the parties most compensated by divorce, because it was always agreed to that they would be compensated within the marriage. If both parties agree that the woman's career will be sacrificed for the family, when things don't work out, she should be compensated (barring major misbehavior on her part, of course).

 

I mostly agree. I have a good amount of sympathy for a stay at home mom who isn't happy with her marriage.

 

However, there is absolutely NO legal mechanism available today to hold women accountable for bad behavior. Even drug addicts and chronic neglecters typically gain custody of the children and just as much spousal support.

 

If a guy has bad behavior courts actually leverage penalties, which can include losing 100% of all marital assets.

 

My grandparents were both pretty unhappy. My father's side, my grandma is a very positive person and makes the best of things, but neither couple was terribly in love. Worse yet, neither really communicated. I'd rather be alone than with someone I can't even really talk to. Plenty of those lasting marriages were bad. I don't think there are less good marriages today; just less bad marriages that last.

 

My grandparents hated and loved each other at the same time. My grandma didn't leave probably for the same reason yours didn't. The court system was not going to pay her to do it.

 

My boyfriend was raised by a single parent, and he's perfectly fine. As are many friends of mine. My Mom was a single parent for awhile before she met my step-father, and her being a single parent forever would've been infinitely better than her staying with my father. The majority of people with single parents I've met are just fine.

 

You think they are fine, but I when I did a research paper on the effects... it was not hard to find numerous studies showing how children of single parent families struggle in adulthood.

 

They often do not understand and fail at long term relationships. It takes a huge learning curve to compensate for that. Additionally, they have triple the chances to suffer from psychosis. Poorer health typically due to lower socioeconomic positions.

 

Children NEED both a male and female role model.

 

I think we should value family, but we should broaden what family means. I think we should value a greater community, but not counsel people to stay in relationships that aren't working. Plenty of messed up people come from 2-parent households, too.

 

Yes... lets add gangs, criminal organizations, and the cub scouts to our definition of family. Great Idea!

 

No, the message is not to stay in a bad relationship. The message is don't have kids in a bad relationship. Or don't get into a bad relationship in the first place.

 

I've seen divorce go very badly for women while it goes not so badly for the man. Even with custody factored in the mix.

I've spoke of this before; my ex roomate (single father caring for his son from infancy) He and the mother never married and in most of these unmarried cases of custody the mother wins. The courts tend to look at the man's unwillingness to have married as a knock against his ability to be responsible. In his case the mother never wanted the kid. It probably would have been aborted if he had not offered her zero responsibility for the boy. When his son was 9 and my exroomie got a good job offer in his hometown, the mother's mom didn't want to lose access to her grandkid and badgered the mom into snatching the boy out of school and going for custody.

 

Two thumbs up for that guy!

 

This guy, who made more money than the mom, fought it and won. The mom was ordered to pay child support.

He also went on to make a support group for fathers going through divorce and custody. What he found was that quite often during the process, men just don't try to go for custody, even sometimes don't try for split custody. What they most often did instead was try to keep their legal costs as low as they could and try to finagle for the smallest CS amount possible. It seemed to be that the moment some hear the words "divorce and custody" their first immediate concern was - MONEY; not the kids and their time with them.

Some did this out of a lack of knowledge for what action they could take. Some others didn't even try for two reasons.

They were believers of women being naturally better at parenting.

They immediately accepted, without trying, that their wife would get the kids no matter what.

 

Yes all of what you say here is true. I know plenty of fathers who are scared of divorce, and/or believe the mother is a better parent.

 

I would add though... and this is something you need to consider... the legal cost to obtain an equal outcome for a man is about 6 to 1. So, on average a man has to spend 60,000 to gain the same result as a woman spending 10,000. This is a function of the increase in time and effort that attorneys have to put into male cases. It's why some specialize in litigating for men.

 

But the ones that put effort in valued their relationship with the kids over the monetary cost of legally preserving that relationship. These men were the ones who got split custody or primary custody.

I believe if more men were that way, you'd less men getting taken advantage of in the courts. If you see a large discrepancy in who fairs better in the courts today, you have to take into consideration those fathers who are less invested in their children and those fathers that just roll over and quit as part of that equation.

 

That is silly. If a guy was all worried about money then he would be MORE willing to fight in court to get a good deal... not less. Also he would be MORE inclined to go for full custody so as to gain child support and not pay it. The whole assertion makes no sense.

 

I have a friend who is a divorce lawyer and from what I see... typically it's the wife using whatever money the family has available to sue for divorce leaving the man with little to nothing to fight back with. Lawyers require CASH upfront, a bad one will want $2,000 a good one will take $10,000.

 

Marital assets are shared until the divorce is final in most states... so I've seen women rack up insane legal fees and then dumping either half or over half depending on her work status onto the man after the divorce.

 

How odd it has always been to me that women can rally and fight for a larger voice and more rights. Change the collective conditions of their gender over the last 100 years. But men have yet to collectively challenge our societies unfair treatment of fathers in the courts. Is it just that they grew soft while they were on top and never learned stand against anything beyond whomever we decide to go to war with? The old saying "the struggle is the blessing" comes to mind.

 

First of all women didn't fight for those rights alone. Men actively fought with them, and then gave them those rights. Also, had it not been for both world wars... women would never have entered the workplace in such large numbers. Fact is that many men realized these things were inherently unfair and worked to effect a change.

 

Women are fairly unified in not wanting to provide any kind of legislation that provides rights to fathers. There are some very strong father's advocacy groups in England that have run into this issue. They even pulled some stunts an parliament to get attention.